On Jul 15, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Erik van Blokland wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2009, at 5:49 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> Any new format, on the other
>> hand, even if decided on today, will require at least half a decade
>> before it's truly usable.
>
> This is just not true.
>
> EOT lite *is* a new format for Opera, Safari, FireFox. Support has
> to start from scratch. So, 2014 before those apps support it you
> reckon?
>
> A webfont wrapper as proposed (more on that in a seperate post) is
> not a new format. It is a plain ttf / otf which can be offloaded to
> the OS for rendering. The unwrapper code is a handful of lines in
> Python, I'm sure it can be done in a single line of Perl. Supporting
> EOT and it's light version require a much bigger investment in time
> and testing. Regardless of what gets decided, there is no reason to
> resort to imaginary arguments to dismiss things.
The arguments for a wrapper with meta-information make sense to me.
I'm curious about how this webfont wrapper proposal can be connected
to existing efforts from CreativeCommons in creating a general legal &
machine-readable digital rights expression infra-structure â€“ something
that Tom Lord's original media wrapper proposal tried to address.
Related links:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_Works_Technicalhttp://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFahttp://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/15768